Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Back in 2012, the two-man indie studio Subset Games released roguelike spaceship simulator FTL: Faster Than Light. It was a pretty cool game, the first big success of Kickstarter, and if you squinted hard enough you could even call it an RPG. A year and a half later, FTL received an Advanced Edition that featured additional writing from Chris Avellone, making it even cooler. Today, nearly four years later, Subset have finally released their next game, Into the Breach. At first glance, it seems like couldn't be more different from FTL - a turn-based, tile-based tactics game where you defend cities from aliens with giant mechs. Into the Breach also features the writing talents of Chris Avellone, but there's no mistaking it for an RPG. Nevertheless, our tactical specialist sser was intrigued by it, and when sser sets his mind to something, he delivers. Without further ado, I give you his thoughts on Into the Breach:

I’ve seen Into the Breach described in a lot of interesting ways, from a game of mechanized billiards to something more akin to aikido. While I was playing it I just kept thinking, “Whatever you do, just don’t call it a puzzle game!” But like so many writers who visit North Korea that cannot ignore the reality of 1984 come to life, I can’t really refer to Into the Breach without touching base with its puzzle-game roots.

Barring a small yet potentially significant %-chance for attacks to miss the Power Grid, the game essentially has no RNG. Enemies telegraph attacks and, with a brilliant interface that spares no details, you only need to read the information and respond accordingly. Sure, there is a bit of variety that is in the spirit of classic RNG. For example, you don’t know where enemies will go. Your pre-battle setup may end up leaving you borked before the battle even begins as enemies scatter into such nasty positions it may as well have been you playing the other side. You also don’t know what sort of monsters might appear either. I had one perfect run slightly tarnished when a ‘grabbing’ insect snagged a mech to certain doom on the very last turn. C’est al Vek.

But in the age of Jagged Alliance and X-Com and Battle Brothers, most look at RNG as a form of percentages, odds, and risk-taking. None of those reside within Into the Breach. Every single aspect of detail is covered with absolute determinism. Like any good puzzle game, things aren’t where they should be and you need to put the pieces where they rightfully fit. The schism between a good score and a smoldered run is solely the responsibility of the player. You have but the greatest weapon at your disposal: time. And, similar to the fantastic and also RNG-less Invisible Inc., there's an even more powerful tool you may be keen on using: the ability to revert time and restart at least one turn a fight.

An infinite amount of time does give me pause, though. Due to the ‘sliding puzzle’ gameplay and the ability to read information so tight and terse Sid Meier would drool, there isn’t much in the way of challenge. I very nearly beat the game on my first run, beat it on my second with a completely different squad, and absolutely breezed through it on a third campaign with another fresh team. It’s a large break from beating FTL which was like trying to rescue a cat from Evil Dead’s rape tree.

Unfortunately, if you put Into the Breach on Hard, it only increases the number of Vek in an attempt to brute force defeat into your hands. Despite following a familiar design path, Invisible Inc. felt as if it had a better grip on difficulty. It utilized a fog of war to present players with unforeseen challenges that they then responded to on the fly. Because Into the Breach is such a puzzle-game at heart, I think that it needs a timer or a ‘rope’ like Hearthstone to compel players to act quickly. I would not have cruised through the game repeatedly if I had to make snap decisions in the tougher situations. Though the game might look like a SNES title, I feel like emulating SNES-era difficulty by simply adding more enemies isn't the right or at least only route to go.

If beating the game is so straightforward, what is the catch that’ll keep one coming back like there was in FTL? There is a bit of a ‘meta’ in Into the Breach that lends it replayability: the mechs themselves. There’s a large cast of machines to choose from and it’s a blast running new teams through a campaign. Some machines are overpowered while others struggle to make a cohesive, kaiju-pinballing unit. You’ll often be surprised which mech proves to be the MVP of the squad. Once you’ve unlocked your fair share, you can start mix-and-matching the pieces. You can make runs with all bruisers and try to stomp your way to victory. Or you could run a team of full-on utility, peacefully pushing and pulling insects around like a hardcore battle of Jains and Kaijus.​

One thing I'm surprised was missing is interesting attack/movement patterns. You've got a chess-like 8x8 board, but where are the knights, where are the bishops? Adding pieces with additional restrictions on them could've added significant (and much-needed) depth. I'm sure they tried it, maybe it didn't work well with random map generation? I also expected the more expensive squads to introduce new mechanics but nope.

I agree the game is ultra simple. Iteration is how games should go, they had their golden hit with FTL what you should do is a bigger and better in everything FTL 2, more ships, more length, better everything basically. And you can see other FTLs propping out there. Its still a nice game but will run out of gas quickly.

It's definitely a lot more casual than FTL, but it's also a really slick turn based game. Feels a lot more like a work game with minimal narrative and dialogue, closer to bejeweled than FTL which had CYOA adventure DNA and lots of lovely reading.

I'd say it does the same job as FTL's; the standard for the more knowledged players that find Normal a tad easy by then. Probably makes a better match for the overpowered custom squads you could make, too.

What made FTL a 40-hour experience rather than a 100+ one for me was the sameyness and the lack of incentive to play with the goal of unlocking new ships. Sounds like this just exacerbates those issues.

I think that's a fair review; it's very much in the same vein as FTL.
There's vague similarities to Advance Wars on the GBA/DS.
Played it for a few hours last night.
Took a while to get the hang of it - the game becomes somewhat easier once you make it off the first island.
It all went pear shaped on the fourth island as I couldn't find the right balance between crucially blocking the spawning tiles and/or killing the numerous alpha enemies quick enough.
I did have three max attack robots but you're still restrained by movement points and/or a favourable map spawn.

Not sure I like the game ending global power mechanic, specifically the way it ties into just the current map's buildings.
Doesn't seem to make much sense - particularly when you might have previously saved several districts worth of generators and buildings.
There's very few ways of restoring power and the buildings are made of Papier-mâché.
Becomes a bit of issue later on when alpha enemies have multi-tile hitting abilities.
Grid Defence is nice when it triggers but otherwise useless.
Writing and/or explanation is non-existent.
I'd say there's about 10 or so enemy types. A mix of melee, ranged and buffing units. Walkers (leapers), flyers and burrowers. A decent mix. The robots are quite gimped by comparison.
The alpha & boss variants have a stronger attack and/or wider spread.
Only four islands but not massive amount of difference between the tile types!
There's a handful of unique scenarios - pilots, freezing, dam, tanks, etc - but the aim is basically the same on each map.
Whether I can muster up the enthusiasm to unlock some the more interesting robots remains to be seen.
The robot with the lightning whip seemed almost as dangerous to allies as the Vek.

Dunno about ITB being easier than FTL. I'd say its harder if anything. Played first run on Hard and lost on last mission of first island by that fucking hornet triple striking all the buildings...

In FTL I basically (on the first run) parked the ship with a shield in an asteroid field to grind evasion of the crew and then the grinding goes towards the invis field which lets you alpha strike enemy guns or engines. The rest of the game you grind for uber guns for the endboss... Its not hard or smart, its tedious...

ITB on the other hand needs some time to figure out the most useful tactics.
It does resemble Chess tactics exercises. I even had a blunder once. The 'Repeat turn' feature does not help if you already pressed 'End turn'...

Right now playing on Normal and it is too easy. I did lose a pilot of the arty piece but got a much better one in the pod on the second island.

One thing I'm surprised was missing is interesting attack/movement patterns. You've got a chess-like 8x8 board, but where are the knights, where are the bishops? Adding pieces with additional restrictions on them could've added significant (and much-needed) depth. I'm sure they tried it, maybe it didn't work well with random map generation? I also expected the more expensive squads to introduce new mechanics but nope.

Overall it seems way too simple to have any staying power.

Click to expand...

Doesn't the limitation of the firing lanes of the mechs make up a little for that? In the starting trio, two mechs can only fire in straight lines, so it adds restrictions to what they can do. Still I agree with you that it lacks staying power, even if I think I'll try a few more runs with different squads.

Still I got FTL out of the deal, so I'll have another game once I've exhausted this one.

The only actual reason I'm putting in those obscure references (disregarding the times I do it completely subconsciously) [in ATOM] is because the popular saying "People are alive as long as they are remembered" really hits home with me for some reason and I want to prolong the lives of things I like through it.

Binky AOD is something of a refutation of the Fury Road / Fallout vision of the apocalypse as something that will bring about a bright new world in which rugged frontierfolk will create utopias (after dealing with the trollish remnants of the world that mostly perished in fire); those basically say, "If all the world were reduced to frontier days, the best qualities would emerge from a mix of benevolent men and feisty women to bring about the idealized frontier image of Little House on the Prairie or Giants in the Earth." AOD says, "If all the world were reduced to frontier days, human greed, fear, shortsightedness, seflishness, and clannishness would push us the rest of the way to extinction." The inspiring (?) message of AOD is that you shouldn't think that the reset button can solve the world's problems; you ought to fix and save the world we have.

1.) I want a game almost exactly like the old ones. Even all the UI quirks, gameplay, MIDI sound/music and artstyle of that era.

2.) I want a game very sinilar to the old ones, but I’m ok with some modern touches like 3D graphics, better UI, etc.

3.) I want a spirirtual sucessor that captures a lot of the feelz and lore of the old games but expands the gameplay and switches up the formula to not only modernize it but push the boundaries of design as if the series still continued today.

These groups of people have and will always exist. The only difference with kickstarter is that all three will have given money in advance for the thing they want. So naturally you’re going to get butthurt no matter what.

Conservative [game] industry abandons old shit on the road all the time, when they feel that good parts of it are not worth the effort. Then kickstarters try to play nostalgia card and revive it, yet the things just crumble in their hands into a dust as if people never understood why these things worked

Yeat at the same time, people who do understand why these things worked manage to make them spring to life because they loved them for reals and have real passion.

Ok guys, fun's over. This topic is getting too heated and people are clearly divulging information not intended for us. As a site, we have a duty to uphold good relations with developers so that we can all work together and have the kind of fun games that we all...

Oh wait, this is the Codex. Sorry, forgot for a minute there. Thought this was NeoGaf or something for a minute.

We're all struggling in the same tar-pit, we're all tar-splattered, and we'll probably all sink, but we have no hope at all unless we spend our energies helping ourselves and others rather than shoving each other down deeper.

[anti-colonial and Communist] revolutions tend to end in disaster for the people and the land irrespective of the moral justification at the outset because the skillset needed to throw off a more powerful oppressor is almost entirely different from, and even exclusive of, the skillset needed to build a political order.

Some of us actually like their hobbies and enjoy good games - including the challenge on the way - not just completing them like addicted junkies who just want to +1 their prestigious gaming experience. The Void was made to be enjoyed, and I enjoyed it the first three times even though I failed miserably until I actually learned how to play. Learning is part of the fun in this game, just like in many others. Do you also bitch how shit Dwarf Fortress is because you didn't win the game when you tried? Or that you didn't finish Crusader Kings 2 because not only you did not manage to conquer the whole world and convert everyone, but also you were thrown to prison, and died?

If people like their games casual and easy, fine, I can understand not everyone likes challenge. However, when you say something like "Games are meant to be finished" telling others their ways of enjoyment are wrong and games should be done to YOUR liking, because you are the only one who gets it right, then you are an idiot. I played D:OS three times but never actually finished it - even though the first time I reached the end boss. End fight was boring shit, so I just stopped playing. I could finish the game within 15 minutes, but it stopped being fun and I just stopped. Games are not meant to be finished, not for me at least, games are meant to be enjoyed.

You almost miss those types [random anti-game US conservative nut-case] with the shit we have today in their place.

Click to expand...

As someone wrote in GG thread, at least we had some genuinely worthwhile games back in the day when guys like him were actual threat.

Click to expand...

MRY, from http://www.cshpicone.com/interview-mark-and-vince:
the question with an RPG system – whether it’s inventory management, item variety, crafting, resting, whatever – is whether it gives the player interesting, meaningful, and enjoyable ways to engage with the game. If a mechanic doesn’t, if it only feeds player mania or encourages degenerate play styles (like rest-pre-buff-fight crawling, save-scumming, paper shuffling, shuttling back and forth from town, etc.), it shouldn’t be in the game

I think the conventional answer is to say that the question ["What's a RPG"] can't be answered in the abstract because it would prejudge the issue should it arise in an actual case or controversy, which naturally would have to be evaluated on its own particular facts. Then when pressed on whether an already-released game is an RPG, I would insist on answering "under established usages." "IGN would call that an RPG, Mr. Senator." "But would you?" "I'm afraid I haven't played it sufficiently to form my own opinion."

By placing the development of the law over a millennium of problems and solutions and solutions to the problems created by the solutions (and cultural and social changes creating new problems addressed with repurposed old solutions amidst the intersection of multiple dispute resolution traditions [civil/anglo-saxon/danelaw]), it really humanized the idiosyncracies and helped me to see the law as a human achievement iterated over generations, like a city or a religion, representing the compromise of a million different perspectives rather than as a failed attempt at perfect organization (a paradigm which I think or project is at the heart of most cynicism about the law).

I find it amusing how many "Anarchists" are employed in often stable, secure jobs. I'm sure there's no connection whatsoever

Click to expand...

99% = Angry at their parents who just want/ed them to work hard and enjoy life. (Grandparents probably escaped from oppression too )

Click to expand...

I once read an article of how Russian punk music is low on talking about the greatness of anarchy vs western punk music and the author speculated that it was due to collapse of the soviet union and the period thereafter and the experience of real anarchy, not sure whether there's any truth to it, but yeah, most anarchists strike me as hilarious naive or just stupid

'Hell, I heard about guys picking up little twelve year old girls on chat rooms. If they can get little girls to meet them in real life just from a chat room, you better believe we'll be able to sell speakers.'

[Unavowed] plot twist is literally that mental illness is proof of an evil soul, unrelated to any physiological component tied to the brain or body, and it can be cured by exorcism. Doesn’t really get more Opus Dei than that.